why not Kucinich

Written by: Benjamin Iglar-Mobley on Oct 29, 2007 11:55 PM EDT

I am a progressive. I am for single-payer healthcare, the immediate withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq, impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, opting out of NAFTA and the WTO, and the creation of a Department of Peace. But I am not for Dennis Kucinich for president. No movement progressive should support Kucinich, because Kucinich does not support the movement.

I don't believe Kucinich is too far to the left for me to support him; in fact, on many issues I stand further left than he is. I opposed the war against Afghanistan before it was even engaged, while Kucinich stills supports it. I am a lifelong supporter of reproductive freedom, while Kucinich only came around to that position in 2003 when he decided to run for president. I'll come back to that second point in a moment.

I have heard Kucinich speak many times in the debates, and I am not impressed with his style. He shouts incessantly, as if he were berating the audience more than entreating them. That's not a minor point when we consider he wants to appeal to the entire country and needs the support of a majority of the people to carry out the massive overhaul of the government that he says he wants to see happen. He raises point after point and does not reach out to other candidates on any of them. He does not credit the work other candidates have done to move progressive issues forward. Again and again his only conclusion is for us to support him and him alone for the presidency if we are true progressives. It is as if he is calling into question our credentials as progressives if we are not for him.

Dennis Kucinich is not interested in forming coalitions or working with others. During his 2004 campaign I suggested to Kucinich campaign volunteers that he could support the organizations that existed then, such as 21st Century Democrats, that were trying to support progressive Democrats for office-- since DFA at the time was still "DEAN For America"-- and use his campaign as a way to strengthen them. He could have supported progressive candidates for lower offices in campaign appearances. Time and again the answer I received from those volunteers was "not interested." Millions of dollars were donated to Kucinich's campaign by progressives who thought supporting him would help build the left, but what legacy was left of the Kucinich campaign? How was the left built up by his run? It's clear what legacy was left by the Dean campaign, since DFA was formed from it and continues to carry forward the work of supporting progressive candidates for office, even against incumbent Democrats who deserve to be replaced. Worse, Kucinich could not even be bothered to pay dues into the DCCC until bloggers took him to task for it leading into the 2006 elections.

Addressing the issue of healthcare, Kucinich points out his introduction of legislation that would create universal single-payer coverage in the US-- Medicare for all. That's a great idea, and I would support it, but how many co-sponsors has he enlisted on his bill? How much support does he have? He's running for President, but he already is a member of Congress and I ask how many bills has he introduced and gotten passed? How successful has he been working with others to move legislation forward? How does he imagine he will be more persuasive as president?

Kucinich has repeatedly charged that he "got it right the first time" on Iraq, criticizing the other candidates first for casting their votes to authorize the invasion and then for changing their positions. Where is the support for helping others come around to the "right" position? Kucinich himself had been solidly anti-choice in his voting record until 2003 when he decided to seek the votes of Democratic primary voters for president and now says he came around in his thinking to supporting reproductive freedom. Fair enough, I'm willing to accept that he has changed his mind on this important issue and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he truly did think the issue through and reach a different conclusion and not just cynically tailor his position to appeal to Democratic primary voters. Where is his willingness to acknowledge a similar change of thinking by other candidates? Instead of bashing his opponents for changing their stances, wouldn't a stronger way to support the progressive position be to acknowledge that movement as a good faith effort to serve the interests of the people and encourage continued moves in the same direction? Again he doesn't make the point because he's not actually interested in building the left so much as building himself alone.

In the 2004 cycle, Dennis Kucinich was running against one person, and it wasn't George W. Bush. It was Howard Dean. Kucinich famously brought a visual chart of military spending to a radio debate and was gently ribbed by the moderator for offering a prop that "doesn't work so well on radio." What was Kucinich's response? Did he say, "It works if my opponents can see it"? No, he said, "It works if Howard Dean can see it." Why Dean alone? Why would he seek to undermine another candidate who at least shared his opposition to the Iraq War and to the USA PATRIOT Act? Later, going into the Iowa caucuses Kucinich instructed his supporters specifically not to caucus for Dean if their precincts did not reach the threshold for him, but instead go over to Edwards. This was the Edwards of the time who had not yet decided that invaded Iraq was a mistake and who did not regret his vote for the invasion-- the same Edwards who voted for PATRIOT and for Bush's tax cuts, which Dean opposed. How was that meant to build the left? I kept waiting to hear Kucinich go after Joe Lieberman in the debates, who after all was sharing a stage with him and who I think offered a prime target for what Kucinich said he opposed in the Democratic Party. I'm still waiting to hear him go after Lieberman. Finally, I would have been happy hearing Kucinich go after anyone besides Dean. He never did. Effectively, Kucinich signed on for the "stop Dean" counter-insurgency in the Democratic Party-- although he was coming from the completely opposite direction as the rest of it. I'm still waiting to hear from any Kucinich supporter how trading Dean for Kerry-- who, again, at the time supported the war, the tax cuts, and PATRIOT-- was in service of building the progressive movement's issues.

I've heard Kucinich supporters say they were voting "on principle" and that they refused to support other candidates who did not share their same positions because it would be a "sellout." I have tried to argue that they should think strategically in using their votes, but they want to "send a message." I seriously wonder what message a Kucinich vote sends, when the Congressman is not interest in backing up the work of other progressives. Refusing to “sell out” our votes is the left’s counterpart to Bush’s refusal to “negotiate with terrorists.” Priding ourselves on our obstinacy is a cold comfort while counting up the wreckage of what we allowed to happen by keeping our hands from getting dirty.

Gloria Steinem commented on Ralph Nader in 2000 that it was easy for him to stake out the positions that he took because he wasn't seeking to build coalitions as Al Gore was. I think the same can be said of Dennis Kucinich's campaigns, in 2004 and now 2008. Dennis Kucinich is "Nadering" the Democratic Party from inside it. He offers the appearance of building the left, while in reality his campaign is a "symbol" that represents nothing but itself.

Support Kucinich if you wish, but don't think you're building the left with your support. Don't think you are building the movement. A movement requires us to move-- to move legislation, to move ourselves to action. In the end, Dennis Kucinich is sound and fury... signifying nothing.

Tags: